Clause 20
Pensions Bill
12:30 pm
James Purnell (Minister of State (Pensions Reform), Department for Work and Pensions; Stalybridge and Hyde, Labour)
I shall try to reassure the hon. Gentleman. We are trying to replicate the arrangements that have been made for other bodies such as the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, a precedent that he helpfully cited earlier. It is normal in legislation to ask an organisation to have regard both to general principles of good governance—the Higgs report and so on—and to specific guidance set out by Government. The piece of gobbledegook, as the hon. Gentleman called it, is intended to state that where governmental guidance conflicts with corporate governance guidance or sets a higher standard of behaviour, the authority should follow the rules appropriate to non-departmental public bodies rather than the softer test of good corporate practice. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he wants.
The general guidance in question is the extensive guidance issued by the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and the OCPA, which is intended to cover all eventualities for every type of public body. Principles of good corporate governance, on the other hand, include those outlined in the Financial Reporting Council’s combined code, which is based on the Higgs report. It is aimed more widely to include private sector organisations. Both sets of guidance outline extensive standards and practices, many of which will be appropriate to the delivery authority.
As I have said, in some instances the principles of good corporate governance are less strict than the guidance specifically for public bodies. An example that comes to mind is the recruitment process for members of the board. I understand that the combined code states that in certain circumstances there need be no external publication of vacancies, whereas the OCPA’s code of practice requires all vacancies to be advertised externally. The clause sets out the fact that the board will have to obey the stricter test rather than the more general one of good corporate governance.
Putting the general guidelines into regulations would achieve nothing more than the clause as it stands. Additionally, whenever the guidance was changed we would have to haul the hon. Member for Eastbourne up to a Committee Room and pass more regulations, which he would be able to debate. That might give him a different incentive from that which it gives the hon. Member for Yeovil, but I argue that it is not necessary. I hope that I have reassured him that there is a proper control framework, and that he will not press the amendments.